The Passion of the Christ

[Super 80]

I haven't seen the movie. Could you elaborate?

You don't read the Gospels, you don't see the movie, and you can't see the Messiah in prophecy...hmmm - knowing Jesus by watching Monty Python? I don't think so.

The devil is one of the better depictions in the movie. It is not mentioned in the Biblical accounts of Christ's scourging or crucifixion. However, in Job, Satan walks the Earth. Satan is poised at Christ's birth to "swallow" the infant. At the end of Jesus' forty day fast Satan tempts Jesus with dominion over the world. (Thus showing that the devil has title to it. If he didn't then he wouldn't be able to offer it to Jesus in return for His worship.) At some point in Jesus' ministry, Satan is removed from the spiritual realm (heaven) by angels. (Luke 10:18; Rev 12:7-9) Jesus has invaded Satan's realm, and has authority over demons because he has bound the strong man, Satan. Satan is closely associated with things of this world. Thus, it is he that animates the hatred towards Jesus. Jesus said the father of the Pharisees was not Abraham as they claimed in their heritage but Satan because they held onto the things of this world and rejected the One that God sent. In the parable of the sower, Satan is working in opposition to Jesus. In the parable of the vineyard, the owners think that by killing the son, they will receive the inheritance.

In the movie, Satan is depicted as a clean shaven man, mocking Christ and sowing doubt. He operates in the shadows, speaking only to Christ. Jesus never answers. But it does depict a side of the metaphysical that could have been part of the conflict and trial of Jesus. One event that is not depicted in the movie is the sweating of blood in the Garden. This physical response has been medically documented and does indicate the intense turmoil Jesus underwent on the eve of His death. It can be an indication of the intense spiritual struggle Jesus underwent in the Garden. Illustrating that graphically instead, Mel Gibson shows us the Satanic figure.

When Satan is walking among the people, his focus is on Jesus. He is gloating. Satan does not interact with any of the people during the trials or punishment of Jesus. The grotesque baby Satan is holding in the latter part may be an interpretation of the Antichrist Satan raises up out of the world. There are seven in total over time (Rev 17:10). (Lucas who 'borrows' religious themes in designing his Star Wars world used this kind of evil relationship in depicting the Sith.)

So 'Dude,' the fact that Satan walks among Jews does not infer any association between the demonic and Judaism. He walks among both good and bad people equally. It does show that he was there, walking around the Earth, just as he answers God flippantly in Job. No surprise there and nothing anti-Semitic.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I suppose that would explain why you got so bent out of shape about Fred Reed's commentary on Trekkies.

The man has no appreciation of science fiction.

(And he's a jerk. )

 

[TWA Dude]

So 'Dude,' the fact that Satan walks among Jews does not infer any association between the demonic and Judaism. He walks among both good and bad people equally. It does show that he was there, walking around the Earth, just as he answers God flippantly in Job. No surprise there and nothing anti-Semitic.

Jeepers, but you're sensitive. I did ask the question but I made no accusations or inferences.

BTW you may address me as "Dude" without the apostrophes.
And I didn't learn about Jesus from Monty Python (who were well-schooled in such things); I learned about Brian, aka Bwion.

Dude

 

[DaveyDave]

Re: I will never understand the Trekkie

--I think driving the nails through the palms is technically inaccurate. At least that's what was taught when I was a Catholic. A more accurate crucifixtion has the nails driven through the bones of the wrists--the flesh of the hand would never support the weight of the body.

Your're right, in crucifixion, your body was actually supported by the spike in your feet. No fun for sure.

 

[Typhoon1244]

...learn about Jesus from Monty Python (who were well-schooled in such things)...

In an interview with Robert Klein, Eric Idle (Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Launcelot, Roger the Shrubber, Brother Maynard, etc.) beautifully summed up the fundamental paradox of Christian worship: Christ came to Earth and said "love thy neighbor," and people have been slaughtering each other for two thousand years over exactly what He meant by that.

 

[CrewDawg]

I just found this on the web. It's Paul Harvey's view of the movie. I havn't seen it yet so thanks for the reviews, I plan on seeing it on Fri.



Interesting....

This is Paul Harvey's commentary after viewing the new release of Mel Gibson's "The Passion" - said to be Anti-Semetic!!! Wouldn't it be great if this film helped influence this skewed world that we are living in!!!

I really did not know what to expect. I was thrilled to have been invited to a private viewing of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion," but I had also read all the cautious articles and spin. I grew up in a Jewish town and owe much of my own faith journey to the influence. I have a life long, deeply held aversion to anything that might even indirectly encourage any form of anti-Semitic thought, language or actions.

I arrived at the private viewing for "The Passion", held in Washington DC and greeted some familiar faces. The environment was typically Washingtonian, with people greeting you with a smile but seeming to look beyond you, having an agenda beyond the words. The film was very briefly introduced, without fanfare, and then the room darkened.

From the gripping opening scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, to the very human and tender portrayal of the earthly ministry of Jesus, through the betrayal, the arrest, the scourging, , the surrender on the Cross, until the final scene in the empty tomb, this was not simply a movie; it was an encounter, unlike anything I have ever experienced.

In addition to being a masterpiece of film-making and an artistic triumph, "The Passion" evoked more deep reflection, sorrow and emotional reaction within me than anything since my wedding, my ordination or the birth of my children. Frankly, I will never be the same. When the film concluded, this "invitation only" gathering of "movers and shakers"in Washington, DC were shaking indeed, but this time from sobbing. I am not sure there was a dry eye in the place. The crowd that had been glad-handing before the film was now eerily silent. No one could speak because words were woefully inadequate. We had experienced a kind of art that is a rarity in life, the kind that makes heaven touch earth.

One scene in the film has now been forever etched in my mind. A brutalized, wounded Jesus was soon to fall again under the weight of the cross. His mother had made her way along the Via Dolorosa. As she ran to him, she flashed back to a memory of Jesus as a child, falling in the dirt road outside of their home. Just as she reached to protect him from the fall, she was now reaching to touch his wounded adult face.

Jesus looked at her with intensely probing and passionately loving eyes (and at all of us through the screen) and said "Behold I make all things new." These are words taken from the last Book of the New Testament, the Book of Revelations.
Suddenly, the purpose of the pain was so clear and the wounds, that earlier in the film had been so difficult to see in His face, His back, indeed all over His body, became intensely beautiful. They had been borne voluntarily for love.FAMILY At the end of the film, after we had all had a chance to recover, a question and answer period ensued. The unanimous praise for the film, from a rather diverse crowd, was as astounding as the compliments were effusive. The questions included the one question that seems to follow this film, even though it has not yet even been released. "Why is this film considered by some to be "anti-Semitic?"

Frankly, having now experienced (you do not "view" this film) "the Passion" it is a question that is impossible to answer. A law professor whom I admire sat in front of me. He raised his hand and responded "After watching this film, I do not understand how anyone can insinuate that it even remotely presents that the Jews killed Jesus. It doesn't." He continued "It made me realize that my sins killed Jesus"

I agree. There is not a scintilla of anti-Semitism to be found anywhere in this powerful film. If there were, I would be among the first to decry it. It faithfully tells the Gospel story in a dramatically beautiful, sensitive and profoundly engaging way.
Those who are alleging otherwise have either not seen the film or have another agenda behind their protestations. This is not a "Christian" film, in the sense that it will appeal only to those who identify themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. It is a deeply human, beautiful story that will deeply touch all men and women. It is a profound work of art. Yes, its producer is a Catholic Christian and thankfully has remained faithful to the Gospel text; if that is no longer acceptable behavior than we are all in trouble.

History demands that we remain faithful to the story and Christians have a right to tell it. After all, we believe that it is the greatest story ever told and that its message is for all men and women. The greatest right is the right to hear the truth. We would all be well advised to remember that the Gospel narratives to which "The Passion" is so faithful were written by Jewish men who followed a Jewish Rabbi whose life and teaching have forever changed the history of the world.

The problem is not the message but those who have distorted it and used it for hate rather than love. The solution is not to censor the message, but rather to promote the kind of gift of love that is Mel Gibson's filmmaking masterpiece, "The Passion." It should be seen by as many people as possible. I intend to do everything I can to make sure that is the case. I am passionate about "The Passion." You will be as well. Don't miss it!

 

[wms]

The movie showed the scene where Jesus healed the high priest's servant's ear after Peter had whacked it with a sword. I wonder what everyone (especially the servant) thought after Jesus healed him?

Incredibly Malcus, the one whose ear was healed, testified against Jesus before the high priest as a false witness. It was his testimony which the high priest felt was enough to condemn Jesus.

TWA Dude, coming from this Gentile, it is wrong to lay the blame on the Jewish people.

Everyone is to blame. Paul said "Christ Jesus came into the WORLD to save sinners", and "all have sinned." The question is, whose desire was it for Jesus to suffer? It was God's. The Jews who charged Him, Pilate who sentenced Him, and the soldiers who crucified Him were instruments to carry out God's will, that He should suffer for our sins, John 3:16.



In Acts 2:23 Peter said "This Man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge, and you (the jews), with the help of wicked men (the gentiles), put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross. But God raised Him from the dead, freeing Him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on Him."

Acts 2:36 "God has made this same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Christ and Lord." Before the cross, the crown with up to three inch thorns was beaten into his skull, the beard was ripped from His face along with the flesh. When he was whipped with a Roman scourge, a whip with bone and glass and metal woven into it, it plowed His back like the furoughs in a field until the flesh hung from his body. But when we look upon Him in glory those wounds will be healed. We won't see the results of our sins in this life. But He will always bear the wounds of the cross, the pierced hands and feet and wounded side as a reminder of who He is and what He has done for us in being punished for our sins. And when we see Him we will know instantly who we're looking upon. "God hath highly exalted Him and hath given Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."

 

[Super 80]

Jeepers, but you're sensitive. I did ask the question but I made no accusations or inferences.

I am not sensitive in a defensive sort of way to this point, but I know some people can be very sensitive to portrayals of Jews as the enemy of Christians and rightly so because of anti-Semitism in history among Christians. Many in the Jewish faith have raised this point as a reason to be in opposition to this movie.

The original quote you pulled had Satan among the Jews. It could then be inferred that the symbology, not explained, depicted the Jews as demonic or under demonic influence. This is not what The Passion of the Christ portrays at all. Since you don't know the story of the crucifixion having not read the Gospel accounts, nor have seen the picture, I took the time to explain this scene to you.

BTW you may address me as "Dude" without the apostrophes.

I'd like to address you by name, but this is a public board. I know full well who I am talking to even if I don't remember your face or meeting you. You have me at a disadvantage there. I met a lot of people in STL, and remember many, but not all. As far a Monty Python, it's British humor, and sometimes not exactly a laugh riot, but other times funny.

 

[SATCFI]

The review attributed to Paul Harvey was actually written by
Keith A Fournier. He is a constitutional lawyer and a graduate of the John Paul II Institute of the Lateran University, Franciscan University and the University of Pittsburgh. He holds degrees in Philosophy, theology and law. He has been a champion of religious liberty and appeared as co-counsel in major cases at the United States Supreme Court. He is the author of seven books and, along with his law practice, serves as the president of both the "Your Catholic Voice Foundation" and "Common Good".

 

[TWA Dude]

The original quote you pulled had Satan among the Jews. It could then be inferred that the symbology, not explained, depicted the Jews as demonic or under demonic influence.

Keep in mind that my question was in response to mar's statement about a scene from the movie and not the scene itself. Taken out of context it could be construed as a very loaded question. I know the context yet I didn't get his point.

I feel I need to remind you that I haven't written one word critical of Passion or of Mel Gibson. Those who are ignorant or malevolant will be antisemites regardless of this movie. Yet there's already some schmuck who put a big poster up on a church proclaiming that the Jews did in fact kill Jesus. (see LINK) He claims he was only revealing the "truth" as told in the Gospel.

I'd like to address you by name, but this is a public board. I know full well who I am talking to even if I don't remember your face or meeting you.

Well, I revealed myself to you since it seemed only fair considering I had you pegged as soon as you showed up here.

 

[mar]

Perhaps a little unfair.

My quote,

<<--But did anyone else catch the subtle symbology of the Devil walking amongst the Jews while Jesus was carrying the cross?>>

I admit that statement may be a little unfair.

But the impression I had was of the Devil participating with the crowd in the jeering and humiliation of Jesus. Or, maybe not actively participating but at least reveling in the activity.

I acknowledge that the Devil didn't interact with anyone except Jesus who, as Super80 pointed out, refused to engage.

Furthermore the Devil wasn't acting as part of the mob but as an individual.

But it just felt real sinister to watch him slither behind or among the crowd rather than step outside as a lone character.

He seemed to almost hide behind or take shelter in the crowd.

I'm probably reading too much into it.

 

[redd]

No Mar, I think you nailed it.

That's the way he operates in the bible, behind the scenes, kind of like the cue ball effect on a pool table, hitting other balls, sending them in motion, which finally hit the ball that ends up in the side pocket-very indirect, but moving all the right players.

It seems that's kind of his MO, especially in this case, I think they say the key to his success is the secrecy of his moves.

Very astute observations regarding pressure of Christ's weight against the nails in his hands up on the cross, and him being the one who dragged the cross through the city.

In fact, many biblical scholars and researchers think the same as you do on these points.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Incredibly Malcus, the one whose ear was healed, testified against Jesus before the high priest as a false witness. It was his testimony which the high priest felt was enough to condemn Jesus.

Just curious, where did you find this?

 

[SATCFI]

The only other reference I can find about Malchus is in John 18:26

But one of the household servants of the high priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Didn't I see you out there in the olive grove with Jesus?" 27Again Peter denied it. And immediately a rooster crowed.

Can't find in any of the Gospels where Malchus was a witness against Jesus.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

I just saw this last night and here's my .02; F-L-O-P. Granted, it was intense but only due to the graphic and extended violence but it takes much more than that to produce a good film. The violence only compensated for bad writing. As for the acting. I guess Mel got actors that duplicate his own over-acting style. I did think that Pontius Pilate's role was acted well. Sorry Mel, you ruined your cheesey action film career for nothing.

Oh well, just my own opinion. If you don't like it, sue me.

I bet that the secularists are wetting their pants, at least I hope so.

Wetting our pants? This is just plain silly. You seem to think that we "secularists" are in opposition to your beliefs. I'm all for it as long as long as your beliefs don't infringe upon me.

This could be the start of something positive in our country

Your optimism might be shared with some but, get a grip,.....it's just a movie.

 

[ShawnC]

I did the same thing at the end of Star Trek VI: the Undiscovered Country, when the Enterprise cruised off into the sunset for the last time.

The last movie that I cried at was Saving Private Ryan. At the very end when modern times Ryan says,

"I hope at least in your eyes, that I earned what you guys did for me that day."

 

[chawbein]

I just saw this last night and here's my .02; F-L-O-P. Granted, it was intense but only due to the graphic and extended violence but it takes much more than that to produce a good film. The violence only compensated for bad writing. As for the acting. I guess Mel got actors that duplicate his own over-acting style. I did think that Pontius Pilate's role was acted well. Sorry Mel, you ruined your cheesey action film career for nothing.

Oh well, just my own opinion. If you don't like it, sue me.





Wetting our pants? This is just plain silly. You seem to think that we "secularists" are in opposition to your beliefs. I'm all for it as long as long as your beliefs don't infringe upon me.



Your optimism might be shared with some but, get a grip,.....it's just a movie.

What a shocker.

 

[BornAgainPagan]

What a shocker.

Oooh! You have more rolling eyes than me! I'm impressed! Wait a minute

so there!

"Shocked" now?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Granted, it was intense but only due to the graphic and extended violence but it takes much more than that to produce a good film.

I heard one reviewer call it a "two-hour snuff film." (Of course, he was probably part of the satanic Zionist plot to discredit the movie... )

Originally posted by Swass
This could be the start of something positive in our country.

Movies don't change things in this country. We didn't all become peace activists when Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan tried to show us the terrible realities of war.

Putting aside all the hype, The Passion of the Christ is actually going to be a lot like a Star Trek movie: the true fans are going to greet it with overwhelming enthusiasm while everybody else gets on with their lives.


(Speaking of hype: Bibles with James Caviezel's picture on them? A Passion of the Christ racecar? What's next? A Lego crucifixion set? Passion glasses at Burger King? Is Christianity going to throw dignity to the wind for this movie? )

 

[BornAgainPagan]

(Speaking of hype: Bibles with James Caviezel's picture on them? A Passion of the Christ racecar? What's next? A Lego crucifixion set? Passion glasses at Burger King? Is Christianity going to throw dignity to the wind for this movie? )

You forgot action figures and flogging tools. An oh; Passion the Toilet Paper!

(okay, stole that one from Spaceballs)

 

[Typhoon1244]

Passion the Toilet Paper!

Watch out for that crown of thorns!





(I know, I can't believe I said that either.)

(Maybe the Devil made me do it...)

 

[chawbein]

Oooh! You have more rolling eyes than me! I'm impressed! Wait a minute

so there!

"Shocked" now?

Snoogins! More rolling eyes. Unfortunately escalation will be self-defeating. I'll add more, you add more, but eventually the site will limit us to a certain number of rolleyes and we will be deadlocked.

My intention was not to comment really on your opinion of the movie (I haven't seen it yet), but to display my feeling that you might not have gone into the movie with the most objectivity. I did the same thing with Legally Blonde 2. It was not quite my cup of tea. Therefore, I thought the movie was one of the worst I had seen. I'm projecting my own motivations on you. Sorry if I misunderstand, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I don't.

 

[Typhoon1244]

More rolling eyes. Unfortunately escalation will be self-defeating. I'll add more, you add more, but eventually the site will limit us to a certain number of rolleyes and we will be deadlocked.

A wonderul summary of the Cold War principle of MAR...Mutually Assured Rolleyes.

(In my best George C. Scott voice...) "Mister President, we cannot allow a rolleyes gap!"

 

[chawbein]

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the WAR room!"

 

[Super 80]

Actually, this movie has changed lives already, and I don't mean that unfortunate woman that had a heart attack.

As far a Mel Gibson is concerned, he had his awakening a while back when he realized the good life was not all there was. And even if he throws away all the material wealth he could have earned, he may have stored some treasure in heaven with this film to more than make up for it.

I think in reviewing it with my Pastor, that it is important to say to the Christian community that this movie incorporates Mel Gibson's Catholic faith. The stations of the cross were first formulated in Church theology between A.D. 381-384. These stations are displayed in the movie. Also, the poignant scene frozen for more than several seconds after Jesus' body is lowered from the cross (another station) mimics very well I'm told a famous painting on the subject.

While there is a Catholic influence in the movie's depiction, it is more than rewarding for all Christians and non-Christians alike. Even with my critiques, I am glad Mel Gibson made this movie, and I am glad I went to see it. I think there will be many that come to Christ in repentence and become Christians too. Tomorrow I will be counseling any that seek it after one of the showings of The Passion of the Christ. And for others, they will search out the Gospel account and read what is written about it in the Scripture.

That some here deride and mock the film...well what did you expect from the world?

 

[Typhoon1244]

That some here deride and mock the film...well what did you expect from the world?

Sanity. Thought. Logic.

They've been hard to come by lately.

 

[Publishers]

Pain

Personnally I thought that the lenghthy time it took for the torturous scenes was not long enough. It certainly was nowwhere near as long as it was in real life.

At one point, I found myself wincing at the sounds of the off set lashes while Mary was depicted away from watching it.

The Devil walking through the crowds and the baby being held were impactful. It wasn't walking through the Jews, it was the walking along and watching his adversary struggling, that was the message. The baby to show that he could have a son as well.

I thought the symbology was excellent but no more excellent than what God chose for us.

 

[Freddie Spencer]

What pastors do when not at the movie theaters...

WASHINGTON — America's top bishop declared Friday that the days of sheltering sex abusers in the Roman Catholic priesthood were "history" as two reports showed how pervasive assaults on minors have been over the last half-century, and that church leaders bore much of the blame.

"The terrible history recorded here today is history," said Bishop Wilton Gregory (search), president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (search ). Victims of molestation countered that they remain skeptical of church leaders' good faith.

• Raw Data: John Jay College Report

The two new reports represent an unprecedented look at abuse crisis, partly because they were done with the cooperation of church leaders. They're certain to lead to months of debate on such hot-button issues as whether gays should be screened from the priesthood.

A panel of Catholic lay people charged by the prelates with investigating the abuse crisis, the National Review Board, issued both a survey tallying molestation claims and costs from 1950 to 2002 and a companion study explaining how the problem happened.

The survey found 10,667 abuse claims over the decades. About 4 percent of all American clerics who served during the time studied — 4,392 of the 109,694 priests and others under vows to the church — were accused of abuse. The percentage of abusers in society at large is unknown because studies are inconclusive.

The tally also calculated abuse-related costs such as litigation and counseling at $572 million, and noted that the figure does not cover at least $85 million in settlements over the past year. The survey was conducted for the review board by John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

"There is absolutely no excuse for what occurred in the Catholic Church," said Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney and review board member. "This is not a media crisis or a personnel crisis. It's the age-old question of right and wrong, good and evil."

Sue Archibald, president of the victim advocacy group The Linkup, said the reports were a positive step. But she called the studies "an incomplete body count" that focused too narrowly on healing the church instead of helping victims.

"Today's most important question should be, 'What happens tomorrow?'" Archibald said.

Gregory agreed, calling the findings an "urgent summons" to reach out to victims. "We have nothing to fear from the truth or from the past if we learn from it," he said.

The review board said neither celibacy nor the presence of gay priests were causes of the scandal, but both issues needed to be examined.

It noted that more than 80 percent of the alleged victims were male and over half said they were between ages 11 and 14 when they were assaulted.

Gregory said the bishops and the Vatican were already discussing whether gays should be ordained. But he affirmed that many homosexual clergy have remained celibate and have served the church well.

The reports also raised questions about whether bishops who sheltered accusers should resign. Bishops answer only to the Vatican, not each other. Still, the review board urged them to find a means to hold each other responsible for failures to protect children.

Asked whether errant church leaders should step down, Gregory said only that "each case has to be judged individually," then he noted that many of the "bad decisions" in abuse cases occurred decades ago.

"Fortunately, most of those bishops are no longer in service," he said. Gregory also noted that, since the abuse problem rose to national prominence two years ago, 700 accused priests and deacon have been removed from Catholic dioceses.

Some bishops had resisted participating in the studies, but John Jay said they ultimately received survey responses from 97 percent of the nation's 195 dioceses, plus 142 religious communities.

Victims' advocates said the numbers were sure to be an underestimate partly because many victims wait years to come forward.

Researchers agreed. They said dioceses examining individual cases of offenders estimated there may be 3,000 additional victims who have not filed claims.

Peter Isely, a Milwaukee psychotherapist and board member of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, said he was less concerned about the overall numbers than about who was monitoring guilty priests.

He said bishops should release the names of offenders in the clergy to fulfill their pledge of protecting children.

"A number is not very useful to Catholic parents who want to know if there has been a sex offender in their parish or school," Isely said.

Some dioceses have released names of accused clergy, including those in Los Angeles and Baltimore. Asked if more should follow suit, Gregory said it's a decision for individual bishops, not the full bishops' conference.

Even after more than two years of continuing reports on abuse cases, the new data provides a startling look at what victims suffered.

About half were molested for a year or more, and 17 percent of families had more than one child victimized. The researchers noted that priests who had just one claim against them often assaulted that one victim repeatedly. Relatively few priests committed only minor acts of abuse such as touching over a victim's clothes, the researchers said.

Only 2 percent of abusers were sent to prison for what they had done

 

[avbug]

We didn't all become peace activists when Full Metal Jacket and Saving Private Ryan tried to show us the terrible realities of war.

No, we had The Trial of Billy Jack for that. I still wake up in the morning humming "give peace a chance," before recovering long enough to kick someone in the stomach with bare feet.

What a great movie.

 

[enigma]

No, we had The Trial of Billy Jack for that. I still wake up in the morning humming "give peace a chance," before recovering long enough to kick someone in the stomach with bare feet.

What a great movie.

Stomach, heck, he kicked him on the side of the face.



8N